Timeline for Is this chart showing the likelihood of a terrorist attack statistically useful?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10, 2017 at 17:22 | comment | added | G. Bach | @matt_black I don't know anything about the tradeoffs that exist there and I'm not sure there's a lot of evidence for what you said. Saying "humans show X behavior but that leads to very little amounts of negative effect Y when you compare it to uncontrollable phenomenon Z" is obfuscation. For the same reason we don't compare the number of deaths caused by the Lord's Resistance Army to traffic accidents, or the IRA to strokes. | |
| Aug 10, 2017 at 15:08 | history | edited | MissMonicaE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
just realized I accidentally wrote something backwards
|
| Aug 10, 2017 at 13:45 | comment | added | matt_black | @G.Bach it puts it in the context of other very rare events which is something worth understanding before making policy. Yes government can influence refugee numbers but the maximal benefit on terror threat is minuscule according to those numbers. | |
| Aug 5, 2017 at 21:43 | comment | added | G. Bach | @matt_black "This puts the risk from refugees in context." It takes it completely out of context; policy can't influence the number of lightning strikes or other random events. It can influence what populations with a significant proportion of people sympathetic to violent ideologies move to where. | |
| Mar 17, 2017 at 12:31 | history | edited | MissMonicaE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
oops, typos
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 1:00 | comment | added | Carl | You are NOT safe anywhere outdoors in a lightning storm. | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 20:44 | history | edited | MissMonicaE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added a note
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 13:27 | comment | added | MissMonicaE | @matt_black I addressed the point about "other things people don't worry about" (in the spoiler text). I'm not saying any of these other data would show a high risk. I'm saying they'd be a more useful context. | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 8:23 | comment | added | matt_black | Like many others you miss the key point of the chart. The only point of the comparison stats is to show the risk of other things people don't worry about. This puts the risk from refugees in context. Public perception says they are a big risk and, therefore, banning them is a good policy. By collating the actual numbers (if the number are right) the chart demolishes the pubic perception. There is no way to go from the number presented to a high risk no matter how many of the adjustments you suggest should be made. | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 21:18 | comment | added | whuber♦ | (+1) Welcome to our site! Thank you for taking the time and effort to craft this thoughtful reply. | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 21:13 | history | edited | MissMonicaE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
expanded on one point, and added an example
|
| Feb 2, 2017 at 19:26 | history | answered | MissMonicaE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |